I’m thinking this means we don’t have to feel bad for Skibsrud anymore.

What Ali Smith did does not match what has been going on at Gaspereau. What a happy bunch of art house fools they have shown themselves to be. We don’t do it for the money, they claim. Does that mean they don’t take money from the Canada Council? Or that they give their books away for free or barter them for cherries and soda pop? The nagging question is this: Why did Gaspereau submit The Sentimentalist to the Giller in the first place–a prize that not only results in big sales but big money. Was this an act of contempt? I like these freeloaders who live off government handouts, produce “art”, and then accuse booksellers and critics of only wanting to make money. What Gaspereau has managed to do, in a very public way, is paint the small presses as incapable of managing success and are, in fact, contemptuous of success. I hope the Giller doesn’t feel this way. As for Gaspereau, they can now prove it really isn’t about the money and not submit future titles to the Giller. Go back to being illustrious and leave the dirty business of having authors read and appreciated by a wider audience to others. And to Susan Swan. How do you define conflict of interest. Don’t you have a special relationship with the publisher of one of the Giller nominees. Maybe Gaspereau can send the money they don’t want over to Thomas Allen?

Sorry, Paul, but you’re backtracking into dishonesty. You know perfectly well that your insinuation was that this is an example Canadian corruption and nepotism. Now, after seeing that you were caught misunderstanding, you’re taking the “guilt by association” route. (Not that there’s any REAL evidence of corruption or nepotism here, anyway.)

But let’s be honest, your purpose wasn’t to smear the people involved — you were trying to suggest there is widespread corruption and nepotism in Canadian literary circles — a spurious claim, at best, and one that speaks mohM��itterness than truth.